This report is focused around Lost and Found data using the intakes and outcomes data received for 2019-2021 (up to September). Its goal is to reflect everything we could learn about L&F from the available data, make sure the numbers we see make sense, and highlight things that would be useful to show but some/all data required for them are missing.
Date range: 2019-01-31 to 2021-09-30
Last updated: 11/12/2021
Scroll down or use the table of contents on the left to navigate throughout the document. Most sections contain multiple tabs showing different facets of a data type. Most plots are interactive, meaning they include tooltips and allow hiding and showing parts and zooming in and out. If something went wrong, look for the house icon in the top right corner of each figure to reset.
This section provides an overview of the RTH rate per year divided by species.
This table covers all strays and RTHs. 350 Animals with intake subtype of Community Cat Diversion were removed from the stray and RTH calculations. RTH rates shown below are the number of strays with RTH outcomes out of all strays.
When we go over this, let’s make sure we calculate the rate the same way you do, so we would want to make sure what we see makes sense. If these numbers are right, they are slightly lower than the national and HASS averages, which are at 30% RTH rate (for dogs) and about the same as the RTH rate for cats (3%), but there is a clear increase trend from 2019 to 2021 (for dogs).
| Species | Year | Strays | RTH_Count | RTH_Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | 2019 | 1329 | 21 | 0.02 |
| Cat | 2020 | 1063 | 18 | 0.02 |
| Cat | 2021 | 952 | 17 | 0.02 |
| Dog | 2019 | 1350 | 190 | 0.14 |
| Dog | 2020 | 1127 | 176 | 0.16 |
| Dog | 2021 | 1658 | 404 | 0.24 |
This one only counts animals who came in as strays from the field, which is anything that has an intake subtype containing ‘ACO’. Normally, we would then split these by RTH method between RTO in the field and in the shelter, but here we will just look at the RTH rate as a whole for animals that were not dropped off by the public.
It seems like these values were only put in use recently, and the rate for them is higher than the yearly average.
| Species | Year | Strays | RTH_Count | RTH_Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | 2021 | 176 | 4 | 0.02 |
| Dog | 2021 | 935 | 277 | 0.30 |
This shows the numbers only for public drop offs. We excluded the subtype ‘Community Cat Diversion’, since they are not expected to be RTH, but kept the subtype Litter No Stray Hold which we were not sure how to interpret. We can see that the rates for these have been slowly increasing, but not as high as those for ACO drop offs.
| Species | Year | Strays | RTH_Count | RTH_Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | 2019 | 1329 | 21 | 0.02 |
| Cat | 2020 | 1063 | 18 | 0.02 |
| Cat | 2021 | 776 | 13 | 0.02 |
| Dog | 2019 | 1350 | 190 | 0.14 |
| Dog | 2020 | 1127 | 176 | 0.16 |
| Dog | 2021 | 723 | 127 | 0.18 |
These three time series show the RTH rate per month, to show whether there were times with particularly high or low rates as well as the overall trajectory.
Knowing that a few L&F programs and practices were updated in Mid 2020, it is interesting to see the trajectory. May to Nov 2020 seem slightly better than previous months, then there is a big drop around the turn of the year, and a sharp increase after March 2021, stablizing around over 25% RTH rate since.
This is the same figure, but only counting field strays (again, anything marked as something other than public drop off). May 2021 was a peak month, and the rate since are consistent and higher than those for public drop offs.
This figure only counts strays who did not come from the field. Despite the zig-zags there is a slow increase, and the rates are lower than those from the ‘field’ (the other figure).
This section shows the number of stray intakes over time, as well as the breakdown of strays by field/shelter intake.
It seems like there have been more strays coming in since June 2021, which makes the higher rates since even more encouraging! Does that seem like the right numbers to you?
The average difference in length of stay (in days) between strays with RTH outcomes and all other strays is shown in the table below – roughly 10 days for dogs and 29 for cats. That means that every successful RTH saves 10 days of care on average (for dogs) at GCAC.
We can make a cost savings calculation using these LOS numbers, the number of RTHs, and a daily cost of care if that is of interest.
| Species | Outcome | Count | Average_Length_Of_Stay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | Other Outcomes | 2710 | 31.86 |
| Cat | RTO | 56 | 2.16 |
| Dog | Other Outcomes | 2286 | 12.78 |
| Dog | RTO | 770 | 2.14 |
The following maps show stray intake and RTH rate by ZIP codes to highlight geographical patterns. The first and second tab are similar to previous metrics; the third tab, RTH Gap, shows the number of strays who were not returned home per ZIP code.
Note: Found addresses were available for 2019-2020 data, so for these, animals with a found address of the shelter (Furman Hall, GCAC, Abandoned at Shelter) were removed.
This combines the other two tabs to highlight where most additional RTH potential exists. As the RTH rate is uniformly high across the city, the areas with more stray intakes stand out.
This section examines animals that had an RTH outcome andn both a found location and an outcome address listed to find out how far away do dogs go from home when they get lost (and are found). After some back and forth to get the data, only the petpoint export for the year of 2020 had both intake and outcome addresses, so we start with that.
In 2020, there were 1807 dogs with stray intake types (since there is very few RTH cats, they are left out). However, many of the dogs had intake addresses that could not be geocoded – about 1100 had to be discarded because they had only a street name rather than a name+number or an intersection! From glancing at 2021 data, this might still be happening, which makes it difficult to complete this mapping as well as make a more granular map of where animals are coming in from.
Out of the remaining 551 animals whose found locations were precise, 121 were RTH. For each of these dogs, the listed intake address and owner addresses were geocoded (using Google’s geolocation service), and then the distance between the two points was calculated. 10 addresses were geocoded incorrectly and were removed, as were dogs with a distance of more than 50 miles between the two points, which were few. Some of these can be corrected if needed. This filtering left a total of 111 dogs.
The distribution of distances is shown in the following figure.
The median distances traveled was 1 mile, as 50% were found less than a mile away from home, and 75% were within 1-5 miles from home. These are slightly longer distances numbers than other communities we’ve looked at. Also, the number of dogs examined (111) is small, so looking at more years might produce a more robust estimate.
| Distance.Category | Num.Animals | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| 5+ Miles | 28 | 25.2% |
| 1-5 Miles | 28 | 25.2% |
| More than a Block, Less than 1 Mile | 41 | 36.9% |
| Up to a Block | 14 | 12.6% |
This section also relies on 2020 data pulled from petpoint of 2571 stray animals, primarily consisting of stray intake types marked as public drop offs and animals with seizure intake type but a subtype of running at large.
To find whether an animal already came in with a microchip has opposed to having it put upon intake, the field Microchip Issue Date is used – if it is before the intake date, the animal is considered to have arrived with it. 17 animals that had a microchip but no issue date were excluded from the analysis.
The following table breaks it down by species. There are more dogs and coming in microchipped (13.4%) than cats (3.2%), but both ratios are quite low.
| Species | Microchip | Count | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | FALSE | 693 | 96.8% |
| Cat | TRUE | 23 | 3.2% |
| Dog | FALSE | 1555 | 86.6% |
| Dog | TRUE | 240 | 13.4% |
This comparison is stronger after also making sure animals compared are similar on other characteristics, such as intake condition and age. But to get a first impression, for cats the RTH rate with chips is 26% compared to 2% without one, whereas for dogs, there is a 52% RTH rate for dogs with microchips vs 14% without chips.
The difference is obviously high, and it is worth also thinking about what might make the ‘yes’ category be only at 52% as opposed to 100% (since there is presumably an owner), such as owners refusing, fees, wrong details on the chip, etc.
| Species | Microchip | Strays | RTH_Count | RTH_Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat | FALSE | 693 | 12 | 2% |
| Cat | TRUE | 23 | 6 | 26% |
| Dog | FALSE | 1555 | 221 | 14% |
| Dog | TRUE | 240 | 124 | 52% |
Zip codes - 1058 of the 7488 stray animals did not have a ZIP code listed. 857 of these had ‘Greenville County Unincorporated’ as the value. Only 11 had no value.
Found locations were missing for 856 stray animals.
For strays, 312 of 13913 available addresses were that of the shelter (which makes sense for animals left at the shelter), which is a reasonable percentage. However, the most common addresses include only a street name, without a number or an intersection, which would make it difficult to pinpoint if we wanted to make the maps above more granular (eg by Census tract) and find distanaces traveled by stray - RTOs. Main examples: Poinsett Hwy, White Horse Rd, Tugaloo Rd.
Intake Subtype - Clarification needed for ’Litter No Stray Hold (692 values). Also, there are multiple values with fairly little usage, as you saw in the figure above.
Outcome Subtype for RTH - it is worth clarifying the difference between Stray Reclaim and Return to Home/Owner, which are the most frequently used. Also, there are seized reclaim and surrender reclaim values used for animals marked as stray intakes - see table below.
| Outcome_Subtype | N |
|---|---|
| Stray Reclaim | 402 |
| Returned to Home/Owner | 361 |
| Seized Reclaim | 53 |
| Surrender RTO | 9 |
| TNR- Return to Field | 1 |
Other things we could show if we had the data for it:
Thanks for reading through, and we’re looking forward to talking through it and thinking about more ways to make this data useful for you.